From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C84B2C01 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:09:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sender-of-o52.zoho.com (sender-of-o52.zoho.com [135.84.80.217]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F29E124 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:09:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.8.2] (119246245241.ctinets.com [119.246.245.241]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1493237378167603.2617503621799; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) From: Johnson Lau In-Reply-To: <201704262001.10933.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:09:34 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <442502AC-CC00-481C-A864-5E5F6F648276@xbt.hk> References: <201704202028.53113.luke@dashjr.org> <06E90C6D-8B4C-40A7-8807-8811A27AE401@xbt.hk> <201704262001.10933.luke@dashjr.org> To: Luke Dashjr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit v2 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:09:41 -0000 > On 27 Apr 2017, at 04:01, Luke Dashjr wrote: >=20 > On Wednesday 26 April 2017 7:31:38 PM Johnson Lau wrote: >> I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or = wallet >> upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the >> commitment structure as suggested by another post. >=20 > Fair enough, I guess. Although I think the dummy marker could actually = be non- > consensus critical so long as the hashing replaces it with a 0. >=20 >> For your second suggestion, I think we should keep scriptSig empty as = that >> should be obsoleted. If you want to put something in scriptSig, you = should >> put it in witness instead. >=20 > There are things scriptSig can do that witness cannot today - = specifically add=20 > additional conditions under the signature. We can always obsolete = scriptSig=20 > later, after segwit has provided an alternative way to do this. You can do this with witness too, which is also cheaper. Just need to = make sure the signature covers a special part of the witness. I will = make a proposal to Litecoin soon, which allows signing and executing = extra scripts in witness. Useful for things like OP_PUSHBLOCKHASH >=20 >> Maybe we could restrict witness to IsPushOnly() scriptPubKey, so = miners >> can=E2=80=99t put garbage to legacy txs. >=20 > They already can malleate transactions and add garbage to the blocks. = I don't=20 > see the benefit here. Witness is cheaper and bigger >=20 > Luke